Support NeoGAF

[Topher]

While Microsoft has struggled to produce first-party hits anywhere close to the scale of PlayStation, Sony itself is no longer satisfied with just selling tens of millions of copies of critically acclaimed games. They want to get into live service, and by “get into live service” I mean spend billions of dollars chasing those ongoing revenue streams.

It was a big driving force behind their purchase of Bungie, steward of one of the most successful live service games around right now, and they’ve just debuted Marathon, a PvP-only live service extraction shooter. Neither are exclusive to PlayStation, but the idea is that Sony will rake in some of that cash on all platforms.

But it’s more than that. Bungie has been tasked with teaching other Sony devs to make their own live service games. All in all, Sony has said they’re working on 12 different live service games, some known, some unknown, and that by FY2025, they will be investing 60% of their budget into live service games. This isn’t necessarily a scaling down of single player games, which will continue to be made and have the same level of cash invested, but a new surge of resources into live service.

To that I say…good luck.

This feels like a dangerous road for Sony. We have seen many large publishers try and fail to move into the live service space. The nature of the genre necessitates and certain level of failure, and a high one at that. There are many, many games that tried to chase Destiny and failed. Tried to chase Fortnite and failed. Tried to chase Overwatch and failed (and Overwatch itself is borderline failing now).

Sony has to understand that its near-perfect batting average with its single-player games is about to tank with a lot of inevitable live-service failures. And before this is even starting it’s…already starting. The Last of Us Factions has been delayed, without even having a release date, after a report that the game was struggling, and many developers were being taken off the project. Supposedly Bungie itself “reviewed” the game and was worried if it would engage players. It certainly seems like it’s on the road to potentially being cancelled.

And that’s Naughty Dog! Not just one of the best single player developers in the industry, but they made some legitimately good multiplayer modes for their games in the past. But a PvP-only, live service battle pass game is far different than putting a multiplayer mode in your game, and this was one of the most high profile live offerings Sony was making. Now, it’s drowning.

The only announced live service game that Sony is making I have any confidence in is Bungie’s own Marathon, partially because of Bungie’s history of great gunplay, partially because there are relatively few AAA competitors in the extraction shooter space.

It feels like Sony’s eyes may end up being bigger than it’s stomach here. Bungie may be able to tell other developers what’s a good or bad live service game, but it’s a rough genre that’s producing a ton of failures. A report out today cited the idea that bosses wanted Arkane to get into the live service game by totally changing their design philosophy for Redfall, meant to be a microtransaction-supported, ongoing live service co-op shooter. Now it debuted to disastrous scores and any future “live” content is in question. Similarly, everyone is looking at Rocksteady with skepticism for the exact same reason, given that they’re going from single player Arkham games to…a live co-op loot shooter with Suicide Squad that everyone looked at sideways when it debuted gameplay footage.

Sony is dominating the console space alongside Nintendo. The PS5 is on track to be one of the best-selling consoles ever. I suppose so long as there is no dramatic shift away from single player games and live service games are added that could be okay. And yet I do wonder what the entire Naughty Dog Factions team might have been able to produce otherwise had they not spent years on an extremely troubled project.

Sure, it’s possible Sony produces some live service hits. Find your own Fortnite and you can print money for a decade. But this is digging for gold in a deep, deep mine, one that may not turn up much of anything at all, and then you’re stuck in a really big hole.

Sony’s Live Service Triple-Down Is A Dangerous Road For PlayStation

While Microsoft has struggled to produce first-party hits anywhere close to the scale of PlayStation, Sony itself is no longer satisfied with just selling tens of millions of copies of critically acclaimed games. They want to get into live service

www.forbes.com

---

I know it is Paul Tassi, but.....

 

[bender]

They are still making the games that have propelled them and if none of these life service games hit, they can adjust.

 

[lh032]

I think as long Sony focusing on SP games as well, its fine for them, assuming IF their GaaS strategy doesnt work in the end.

 

[Slicker than your average]

These weird concerns are nothing but strange. Why can't Sony do both? Have they suddenly dropped the ball on SP games? No. Unless their SP games suffer in quality because of this then there's no need to worry.

 

[The artful mincer]

So I understand Sony expects most of the projects to fail but it won't matter if one or two of them hit big.

What I want to know is what's gonna happen to all the devs of the failed projects?

 

[Unknown?]

These weird concerns are nothing but strange. Why can't Sony do both? Have they suddenly dropped the ball on SP games? No. Unless their SP games suffer in quality because of this then there's no need to worry.

Also why does everyone act like they need to be massive hits?

 

[gothmog]

If they invest in original things like warhawk/Starhawk I'd be happy. If it's all extraction shooters and BR then no thanks.

 

[feynoob]

Selling 20m copies in year at average of 55$ is 1.1b in 1 year. You get live service games that make that much every year. Even the bad ones make like 150+m a year at minimum.

The dynamics of gaming is changing. As long as people are ok spending 100$ on mtx, it won't stop.

 

[feynoob]

These weird concerns are nothing but strange. Why can't Sony do both? Have they suddenly dropped the ball on SP games? No. Unless their SP games suffer in quality because of this then there's no need to worry.

Because money.
If these games make more money than SP games, you will see a change in their output.

Nothing stays the same. Look at EA, Ubisoft, take 2, square enix. All changed due to microtransactions and live service games.

 

[8BiTw0LF]

I'm only interested in 3 out of 10 PlayStation single player games (in general). They'll keep me busy for around 150 hours.

If 3 out of 10 live service games keeps me busy, I can easily put over 3000 hours in them.

Sony knows exactly what they're doing and as a lover of live service games, I can't wait to see what their studios has been brewing.

 

[Fbh]

At this point expecting any big publisher to not pursue GAAS is foolish, they just make too much money to ignore.
With that in mind I think the way Sony has approached this is (almost) the best case scenario, they have mainly gotten NEW studios to work on GAAS crap while most of their existing developers are still making single player games, with the one exception being Naughty Dog (who a are still making single player too)

So I understand Sony expects most of the projects to fail but it won't matter if one or two of them hit big.

What I want to know is what's gonna happen to all the devs of the failed projects?

I think it will depend on how and why they fail.
Sometimes GAAS have solid initial reactions and decent reviews but they don't manage to retain a big player base, like Knockout city. Or how Multiversus seemed really big at first and then it just died.
I think in those cases Sony will definitely be willing to give them another chance, I'm pretty sure they are willing to throw billions down the drain in the hopes of getting some successful GAAS.

 

[diffusionx]

The Activision-Blizzard acquisition surely scared Sony, they can't rely on these third party deals when there is a rapacious competitor that is trying to buy everything that isn't nailed down. For all the high reviews and accolades that Sony moviegames get, they can see how many people play (and how much revenue they get from) Madden/FIFA/COD, and they can't be dependent on those studios forever. They need something of their own, and yes it is a big risk and it is really hard. Luckily they are being proactive about it, shutting down and scaling back projects that aren't working. On the other hand, FairGame$...

 

[lh032]

So I understand Sony expects most of the projects to fail but it won't matter if one or two of them hit big.

What I want to know is what's gonna happen to all the devs of the failed projects?

Back to SP.

Hopefully.

 

[Thirty7ven]

They should be doubling down on SP IPs, old and new. For their Gaas push they should do what they did witb Bungie or Haven.

Putting their premier studios working on gaas or simply not investing in new SP IP from new and old studios is insane and whoever is calling those shots gotta go.

 

[reinking]

I'm going to be honest. I am a Sony fan and I am concerned about this. I do not mind that Sony/PlayStation is going to pursue this market but I hope they do not cannibalize their AAA single player studios to do it. Naughty Dog wanted to do TLOU multiplayer but it is a good example of resources being spent on a multiplayer project that now seems to be having issues before launch.

 

[CoreyFlawless]

Yeah. Like MS does better with the live services stuff. But their weakness was there single player games. Which is on the horizon to turn around. Like MS could have a very good next 2-5 years of good single player games with the wrpg and such. Their main weakness still be the cinematic story driven games, which Sony the best at. But I can see Sony like, every genre goes up and down. They could be think it starting to have negative reactions. Already have ppl calling them walking simulations or whatever. But if Sony putting so much there money and time in this live service shit. And doesn’t pan out, which they never been good at that compare to MS. It could hurt them in the long run

 

[Thirty7ven]

Yeah. Like MS does better with the live services stuff. But their weakness was there single player games. Which is on the horizon to turn around. Like MS could have a very good next 2-5 years of good single player games with the wrpg and such. Their main weakness still be the cinematic story driven games, which Sony the best at. But I can see Sony like, every genre goes up and down. They could be think it starting to have negative reactions. Already have ppl calling them walking simulations or whatever. But if Sony putting so much there money and time in this live service shit. And doesn’t pan out, which they never been good at that compare to MS. It could hurt them in the long run

How is MS good at live service games?

 

[Markio128]

The only thing that concerns me is that we’ve barely seen any of them. For that reason alone, I’m struggling to have an opinion on this subject, one way or the other. I’d be concerned if I’d seen the majority of them, and they looked shite.

Saying that, a gaas title would need to be pretty special for me to be hyped about it.

 

[Guilty_AI]

How is MS good at live service games?

They're not the best, but they still have some decently successful stuff like Sea of Thieves, Halo MCC, Flight Sim and Forza Horizon series.

 

[ProtoByte]

These weird concerns are nothing but strange. Why can't Sony do both? Have they suddenly dropped the ball on SP games? No. Unless their SP games suffer in quality because of this then there's no need to worry.

They can't and shouldn't do both with one studio. The time for tolerating that possibility has passed now. Everyone who was complaining about Sony not doing MP nonsense was so sure that Factions was going to be the coup de grace. If that can't work for an abnormally staffed up Naughty Dog, it can't work for any of them. I fully expect and hope for at least Insomniac's MP project to get cancelled as whatever PlayStation does manage to pinch out here flops.

They'll try to do it with Haven and Firewalk, but... really? Who on earth looks at FairGame$ and doesn't see flop written all over it. Concord supposedly launches next year, and they can't muster anything up beyond the vaguest of CGI trailers I've seen in a while.

 

[RCU005]

Why does Sony and Microsoft believe that live service games have to be shooters? I hate live service games, and I wish this trends dies because, I feel this will kill gaming as we know it.

With that said, there’s Genshin Impact that’s making tons of money and it’s not a shooter. If they want to succeed (hope not) in this stupid trend, they should be creative in the games they are making, not just go after what it’s already there (which most of them are shooters).

Edit: Want to add. I thing Suicide Squad could’ve implemented a good live service concept while still keeping a brawler aspect instead of making it a shooter, which doesn’t even go with most of the characters.

 

[AmuroChan]

Do I want all these live service games? No, but I understand why Sony wants to at least explore this space and try to diversify their portfolio.

Also, for the last few years fans have been complaining that Sony first party games all feel the same. Well, they're clearly trying something very different now. So you can't have it both ways. Either you want Sony to diversify their portfolios and take some risks that can fail, or you want them to just keep making SP narrative driven games.

 

[CityHunter1981]

No it’s not. They will make fuckloads of money with it and they couldn’t care less that they will make their core fans angry about it.

 

[TheThreadsThatBindUs]

While Microsoft has struggled to produce first-party hits anywhere close to the scale of PlayStation, Sony itself is no longer satisfied with just selling tens of millions of copies of critically acclaimed games. They want to get into live service, and by “get into live service” I mean spend billions of dollars chasing those ongoing revenue streams

It was a big driving force behind their purchase of Bungie, steward of one of the most successful live service games around right now, and they’ve just debuted Marathon, a PvP-only live service extraction shooter. Neither are exclusive to PlayStation, but the idea is that Sony will rake in some of that cash on all platforms.

They already are with Destiny 2. The game didn't cease to exist when Sony bought Bungie. So not only do they now already own one of the most successful live service games around, its developer is making a second which is likely to continue that success... (Bungie really know what they're doing).

But it’s more than that. Bungie has been tasked with teaching other Sony devs to make their own live service games.

Devs?... No... a single dev... ND, who was struggling to make TLOU: Factions stick. They're a largely SP developer who proved they didn't have the chops on their own to make a popular MP game that's capable of driving mainstream engagement.

Factions is no longer a tack-on MP mode for TLOU II. As a stand-alone MP Live Service game it needs to be designed to maintain mainstream player engagement in continuity. As great as TLOU MP mode was, it didn't generate huge numbers of players nor keep huge player numbers engaged throughout the life of the game. So ND needed help from a studio with the chops to close that experience gap.

This feels like a dangerous road for Sony. We have seen many large publishers try and fail to move into the live service space. The nature of the genre necessitates and certain level of failure, and a high one at that. There are many, many games that tried to chase Destiny and failed. Tried to chase Fortnite and failed. Tried to chase Overwatch and failed (and Overwatch itself is borderline failing now).

Why do you think that this isn't calculated into Sony's plans? Why would a publisher back so many Live Service games, if the goal was not to intentionally take the scatter-gun approach to catch lightning in a bottle? They only need one of those twelve titles to hit big of the scale of something like Fortnite and the returns are so great (these games literally print money) that a single major success will more than offset the losses on those 11 other titles.

They're taking a calculated risk.

What are the downsides? Where is the danger? ... So if all 12 games fail... they still have Destiny. Maybe one or two of those dedicated Live Service games studios tries again and the rest close.... and what?... They lose some money.... and?... Their existing stable of SP-focused studios carry on making hit AAA SP games and the industry moves on.

I'm not seeing the major risks here you seem to be trying to warn against. Sony's PS platform prints money. They can afford to take risks on big bets. Why would you expect them to be more risk-averse when they're dominating the console industry already?

Sony has to understand that its near-perfect batting average with its single-player games is about to tank with a lot of inevitable live-service failures. And before this is even starting it’s…already starting. The Last of Us Factions has been delayed, without even having a release date, after a report that the game was struggling, and many developers were being taken off the project. Supposedly Bungie itself “reviewed” the game and was worried if it would engage players. It certainly seems like it’s on the road to potentially being cancelled.

Ok... then ND's Factions team just focuses on the MP mode for their next big SP game. Games get canceled all the time. What's the issue?

Sony is dominating the console space alongside Nintendo. The PS5 is on track to be one of the best-selling consoles ever. I suppose so long as there is no dramatic shift away from single player games and live service games are added that could be okay.

Given that this is exactly what is happening, I think the entire point of this thread is moot. These concerns don't seem to have any rational basis.

No it’s not. They will make fuckloads of money with it and they couldn’t care less that they will make their core fans angry about it.

Core fans have no rational reason to be angry about anything. They're still investing the SAME amount in SP AAA game as they did in their biggest year for SP games. So the core fans will still have hit AAA games by the hit-maker studios.

Sony has acquired new studios to make Live Service games. So these games are by definition additive to the portfolio. If Core fan don't like them, don't buy them.

Sony has NEVER in their history only made one type of game for one type of gamer demographic. Folks are too quick to forget stuff like Singstar and Eye Toy. These GaaS games are just like those... i.e. not for the core fans. There'll be plenty for the core fans. It's just that now, there will be even more for those who are fans of big live service MP games too.

 

[Torrent of Pork]

How is MS good at live service games?

Bro, Sea of Thieves is hands down the most successful thing Rare has ever done. They bought ESO and Minecraft, both of which make metric shit-tons of cash, and are only growing. Halo Infinite is also quietly making money.

They're doing alright.

 

[feynoob]

Sony has NEVER in their history only made one type of game for one type of gamer demographic. Folks are too quick to forget stuff like Singstar and Eye Toy. These GaaS games are just like those... i.e. not for the core fans. There'll be plenty for the core fans. It's just that now, there will be even more for those who are fans of big live service MP games too.

Sony switched from PS3 games to PS4 games and dropped their shooter games at the start of PS4.

Never discount them for focusing on certain type of games. They will focus more on what prints them money.

God of war Ragnorak made 600+m-700+m in 3 months. The longer the sales for that game drags, the less money it makes due to price depreciation. Not to mention the cost of making that game reduces the profits.

On other hand, live service games are cheap to make and print close to that amount of money and can still generate money in long term, unlike SP games, which gets depreciated as time goes on.

It's why these companies are chasing this trend.

 

[ergem]

So I understand Sony expects most of the projects to fail but it won't matter if one or two of them hit big.

What I want to know is what's gonna happen to all the devs of the failed projects?

Hopefully they can make single player AAA games too.

 

[Ansphn]

Have no problem with GaaS. Always wanted to experience Sony's take on GaaS. Imagine a Co-Op Last of us 2 with multiple seasons of content.

 

[ChiefDada]

If they invest in original things like warhawk/Starhawk I'd be happy. If it's all extraction shooters and BR then no thanks.

As it stands, Warhawk is the only game that would reel me back into multiplayer. That game was stupid fun on the PS3.

 

[TheThreadsThatBindUs]

Sony switched from PS3 games to PS4 games and dropped their shooter games at the start of PS4.

Uncharted 4 is not a shooter? KZ: Shadowfall is not a shooter?

Even TLOU II can be considered a shooter of sorts.

Never discount them for focusing on certain type of games. They will focus more on what prints them money.

No, they don't.

PS has never put all its eggs in one basket.

They make core games for the core gamer fanbase, then they make casual games and quirky games, and every other type of game for everybody else.

If you can't see that you haven't been playing close enough attention.

God of war Ragnorak made 600+m-700+m in 3 months. The longer the sales for that game drags, the less money it makes due to price depreciation. Not to mention the cost of making that game reduces the profits.

On other hand, live service games are cheap to make and print close to that amount of money and can still generate money in long term, unlike SP games, which gets depreciated as time goes on.

It's why these companies are chasing this trend.

Yes.... this is basically what I'm arguing in this thread. Sony wants to have at least one or two big successful Live Service games because the constant revenue stream will buttress their development budget across all their big AAA games; i.e. if at least one Live Service game prints money, it can offset the losses on many AAA SP games that don't meet their financial targets... meaning Sony's SP devs can now afford to take more creative risks.

 

[Nautilus]

These weird concerns are nothing but strange. Why can't Sony do both? Have they suddenly dropped the ball on SP games? No. Unless their SP games suffer in quality because of this then there's no need to worry.

I think its less about Sony trying to make a live service game, and more about investing 60% of all money on it. They didn't join, they jumped head in. That's whats worrying.

 

[gothmog]

As it stands, Warhawk is the only game that would reel me back into multiplayer. That game was stupid fun on the PS3.

Exactly. People always want Sony to dip back into their old bag of tricks. Well live games were part of that. Fingers crossed they're investing in a diverse group of games.

 

[feynoob]

Uncharted 4 is not a shooter?

Even TLOU II can be considered a shooter of sorts.

These are story shooter games. Think of it like splinter cell games.

KZ: Shadowfall
This one on the other hand is a shooter game. Same with Socum. You can create live service from these games.

No, they don't.

PS has never put all its eggs in one basket.

They make core games for the core gamer fanbase, then they make casual games and quirky games, and every other type of game for everybody else.

If you can't see that you haven't been playing close enough attention.

I dont see them making RPG games. They even stopped their military shooter games to focus on games like god of war, spiderman, horizon and ghost of tsushima.
Now that the budget for these games caught up to them, they are changing to something different like live service games.

Yes.... this is basically what I'm arguing in this thread. Sony wants to have at least one or two big successful Live Service games because the constant revenue stream will buttress their development budget across all their big AAA games; i.e. if at least one Live Service game prints money, it can offset the losses on many AAA SP games that don't meet their financial targets... meaning Sony's SP devs can now afford to take more creative risks.

But you have to recognize the potential issue from this act.
The amount of money it generates can make Sony focus less on SP games and more on live service games. Shareholders are different breed. and Sony isnt an exception. This live service focus already made EA, ubisoft and take 2 what they are now.

 

[Shubh_C63]

This isn’t necessarily a scaling down of single player games, which will continue to be made and have the same level of cash invested, but a new surge of resources into live service.

Then what's wrong with it ?


They only need 1-3 hits amongst their 12 and they can try again. And they will definitely succeed in few massive gaas hits, no way they don't.

 

[feynoob]

Then what's wrong with it ?


They only need 1-3 hits amongst their 12 and they can try again. And they will definitely succeed in few massive gaas hits, no way they don't.

Time line.
Gaming production scale is large these days and games take too long to make them.
So for Sony to make alot of live service games, they are going to waste 3-5 years worth of production time. Then they have to do the same thing again, if they want to keep up with others, as those live service games have a time limit.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

does he said anything about what pays the bills for each of the Third Party Publishers?

 

[Loomy]

This is such a stupid and short sighted take. Look at the last showcase. How many first party AAA single player experiences did they show? Those games take increasingly longer to make and cost increasingly more money.

Sony probably saw this and l considered two options. Massively increase the number of new IP single player games they develop, or find a way to generate additional revenue between the ones they're currently making. GAAS is the way to go here. No, GAAS doesn't automatically mean shit. Yes, it's a gamble, but it's either that or waiting 2 years between significant release for something that may sell the same amount as Horizon.

I doubt Sony is expecting all 12 of these games to hit, or even release. They've already apparently cancelled 1 or 2. My guess is if 3 of those are mildly successful and 1 is a hit, the investment will be seen as a success.

To summarize: Yes, it's a gamble. Yes, it could blow up in their faces. But what else are they supposed to do? Hope someone somewhere has another God of War/Uncharted in their back pocket?

 

[Topher]

I'm going to be honest. I am a Sony fan and I am concerned about this. I do not mind that Sony/PlayStation is going to pursue this market but I hope they do not cannibalize their AAA single player studios to do it. Naughty Dog wanted to do TLOU multiplayer but it is a good example of resources being spent on a multiplayer project that now seems to be having issues before launch.

My concerns echo yours. And those concerns solidified at that bullshit "PlayStation" showcase. Maybe it is all fine and Sony's studios will continue cranking out great single player games. The problem is I used to know that was the case. Now I don't. Hopefully our concerns are unwarranted.

 

[Heisenberg007]

This is true.

Live-service GaaS games are high-risk and high-reward. If you fail, you fail miserably. If you succeed, you may end up with a GTA Online, a Fortnite, or a Destiny.

I agree with both groups in this particular case: those in favor of Sony making live-service games (because Sony needs money to remain competitive with big daddy $ companies) and those who are not in favor of this (because Sony needs to protect its identity).

But one good thing about Sony is that does not have f-you money.

If they start failing at something, they will pivot quickly because they don't have infinite cash to burn. And Jim Ryan is a very "money" guy. He is going to go after this, but if he fails, he will not want to be remembered as the guy that left with a red balance sheet. He will pivot quickly and make sure that he ends up after course-correcting despite a failed experiment.

They have been very strategic about it so far, however, with the Bungie purchase and all and using them to review their games. I think there will be initial bumps until all studios are aligned with Bungie, but in the end Sony will succeed with at least some of those games.

 

[yurinka]

They should be doubling down on SP IPs, old and new.

Putting their premier studios working on gaas or simply not investing in new SP IP from new and old studios is insane

Sony said they play to increase their investment in SP games. And since GaaS are way more expensive than SP games, 60% of their investment in GaaS means that by 2026 Sony will be investing in more SP non-GaaS titles than in GaaS titles.

Also, Sony said that around half of the over 25 games they have under development are new IPs. Also, only 12 (maybe now 11 if the Deviation one got canned as it seems) of over 25 -apparently over 30 or even over 40- games under development are GaaS.

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

Over blown reaction to nothing. Sony said at some point last gen that something like only three or four of every ten games they release is profitable. There's absolutely nothing wrong with taking two or three of those six or seven money losers and turning them into a service game to aim for recurring revenue. You can also have a service game that isn't inherently bad. Gran Turismo has become a live service game. Imagine a Horizon 3 where you have the same emphasis on single player but they also add weekly or monthly quests or missions and challenges that can unlock certain things. It would drive continued engagement which would help with further DLC and also mean less used copies on the shelves. Or even something like Playground does with Forza Horizon where there are seasons in the game, even in single player, that drastically change the environments and open up new enemies and areas and missions.

 

[balls of snow]

Scrap the rest and keep Bungie's Marathon. But Sony is gonna learn the hardway.

 

[{insert code here}]

Sony is walking down the same path MS did ten years ago when they were trying to capture the casual market with Kinect. All these posts justifying Sony's approach are eerily similar to those who were back then justifying MS chasing the Wii audience. Well, MS never recovered from that foolishness. Hopefully Sony does better cause they're betting a lot more money on GaaS than MS did with the Kinect.

 

[Represent.]

Here's to them all failing miserably. Which they will.

Literally no one asked for this shit. So they will learn the hard way.

12 fucking live service games is egregious, embarrassing, and greedy. Not to mention it comes off as desperately throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks.

Imagine thinking spending 60 PERCENT of your budget on GAAS trash is a smart idea.

Not a single soul is excited for a GAAS trash game from a studio we've never heard of. Lmao at Haven Studio, and Firesprite, or whoever the fuck they are.

 

[CoreyFlawless]

How is MS good at live service games?

Well they always been better than Sony with their mult player games. As for gaas games, close thing Sony got is GT. Compare to Minecraft, SOT, halo in some ways still going, flight sim, forza series, got the elder scrolls online now and fallout 76. Hell I’m sure there other I’m not even thinking bout that they always keep updating.

 

[ShadyAcshuns]

Most don't want to admit it, but we'll likely never see another Gravity Rush or Days Gone type of game from Sony ever again. The good ole days are gone forever.

 

[Bernardougf]

People always think that bad things wont happen and changes wont come until they do .... last showcase was disastrous for those who expected the usual sony first party SP showing ... it sended a message ... people are down playing it as usual for a fanbase as passionate as this.. but for me the red alert is on and until the next showcase will remain this way

Words are words and assumptions are assumptions.. for now we have what was shown and nothing more

 

[Cyberpunkd]

So I understand Sony expects most of the projects to fail but it won't matter if one or two of them hit big.

What I want to know is what's gonna happen to all the devs of the failed projects?

They will be let go. They have good resumes, they will be fine.
Yes, out of 12 projects 1-2 will be hits, 2 will break even, rest will be flops.

 

[Cyberpunkd]

12 fucking live service games is egregious, embarrassing, and greedy. Not to mention it comes off as desperately throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks.

It’s not throwing shit, it’s VC funding idea applied to game development. You invest in 10 startups, 8 will fail, 1 will continue to grow slowly without ever reaching critical mass, 1 will be the next Uber (which is a terrible example, since they are still not profitable).

 

[Lupin25]

As it’s been said, as long as their single-player games don’t suffer in the long run, having nearly *cringe* all of their studios work on live-service games is fine…

If most or at least half of those GAAS end up good, it’s a plus.

I’d like to say ongoing/live-service is dying out but as long as Take-Two/Rockstar & Epic are at the top swimming in funds with GTA Online & Fortnite, Sony and others will always attempt to cash-in on them. Risky investments but the ROI for even a game like Marathon could be HUGE.

They’re essentially mobile games for console.